Lessons from Canada’s Solar Energy Failure:
By Brendan Blowers
As global efforts to transition to sustainable technologies ramp up, the debate over whether governments or markets should drive this change continues to intensify. While governments around the world rely on mandates and subsidies to push new technologies like electric vehicles (EVs), history shows that market forces may be the more effective driver of lasting change. One of the most telling examples is Canada’s failed attempt to mandate solar energy adoption in the late 1970s. This costly experiment offers valuable lessons, especially as we grapple with similar challenges today in the adoption of green technologies.
The Canadian Solar Energy Experiment: A Costly Misstep
In the late 1970s, during a global energy crisis, the Canadian government launched an ambitious solar energy program. Through initiatives like the Purchase and Use of Solar Heating (PUSH) and the Program of Assistance to Solar Equipment Manufacturers (PASEM), over $125 million (in 1978 dollars) was allocated to jump-start Canada’s solar energy industry. The aim was to make the country a leader in solar technology, with new companies receiving funding for solar-thermal research and development.
Yet, instead of nurturing a thriving solar industry, these programs became mired in inefficiencies. Administrative delays, burdensome feasibility studies, and the lack of market demand overwhelmed fledgling companies. By 1982, only a fraction of the allocated funds had been spent, and when government support evaporated in the mid-1980s, most companies went bankrupt or shifted focus to other sectors. The solar experiment had failed, leaving Canada without the self-sustaining industry it had hoped to foster.
Dr. Doug Milburn, co-founder and chairman of Advanced Glazings, an innovator in sustainable glass technologies, sees Canada’s solar collapse as a direct consequence of excessive government intervention. Born and raised in Nova Scotia, Milburn earned a PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of Waterloo and has spent over 35 years in manufacturing and engineering. Drawing on his experience, Milburn argues that forcing the adoption of technologies before the market is ready can doom even the most promising innovations.
“Canada’s solar energy failure wasn’t because the technology didn’t work,” Milburn explains. “The failure came from pushing adoption too soon, creating a backlash that the industry couldn’t recover from. It’s a lesson in what happens when government mandates lead and attempt to force the action, rather following market forces.”
Electric Vehicles: A Modern Parallel
The challenges Canada faced in the 1970s find echoes in today’s drive to promote electric vehicles (EVs). Governments worldwide are offering generous subsidies and imposing strict emissions regulations in a bid to accelerate EV adoption. However, despite the potential of EVs to transform the automotive industry and reduce carbon emissions, adoption rates have been slower than expected. High costs, insufficient charging infrastructure, and consumer concerns over battery range are still significant obstacles.
Milburn sees this as another case of pushing too hard, too soon. “It’s not that EVs aren’t viable,” he says. “But if you force adoption before people are ready—before the technology has matured in the market—you risk creating the same backlash we saw with solar energy. The perception can become so negative that even when the technology improves, it’s hard to recover consumer trust.”
Indeed, public hesitancy around EVs mirrors the struggles Canada faced with solar power. While early adopters embrace the technology, many consumers are wary, preferring to wait until it becomes more affordable and practical. The slower-than-anticipated growth of the EV market underscores the need for a more measured approach.
Why Market-Driven Adoption Works
Both the Canadian solar energy experiment and today’s push for EVs illustrate the shortcomings of relying too heavily on government mandates. Sustainable technologies thrive when they are driven by market demand rather than political directives. When consumers choose a product because it meets their needs—whether for its cost-effectiveness, reliability, or convenience—the market naturally drives innovation and competition.
Take Tesla as an example. The company didn’t succeed because of government subsidies; it succeeded because it created desirable products that met consumer expectations. By producing high-performance EVs with cutting-edge technology, Tesla catalyzed the growth of the EV market. As demand increased, other automakers followed suit, investing in better battery technology, charging infrastructure, and more affordable models. In this way, market-driven adoption has helped push the entire industry forward.
Milburn points to the consumer psychographics outlined in Jeffrey Moore’s *Crossing the Chasm*, which describes how new technologies reach mainstream acceptance. “Early adopters embrace innovation,” Milburn explains. “But most consumers need to see proven success in the market before they make the leap. Mandates can’t accelerate that process—it happens organically as demand grows.”
The Role of Government in a Market-Led Transition
While Milburn advocates for a market-driven approach, he acknowledges that governments still play a crucial role in facilitating the adoption of sustainable technologies. Rather than mandating specific technologies, governments should focus on creating the right conditions for innovation and competition.
Milburn emphasizes that government investment in research and development can help advance early-stage technologies without creating artificial demand. Policies like carbon pricing can internalize the environmental costs of fossil fuels, leveling the playing field for cleaner alternatives. Governments can also support essential infrastructure—such as EV charging stations—while allowing consumer demand to dictate how quickly these technologies take hold.
What Milburn cautions against, however, is overregulation. “The lesson from Canada’s solar energy failure is clear: when you try to push technology adoption through heavy-handed mandates, you distort the market and set industries up for failure,” he warns. “We need to let market forces work, allowing technologies to be adopted naturally when they’re ready, rather than when governments say they should be.”
